On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:16:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/


I still do not understand how they got their numbers.
Take Freedom.
France is 100 with religious persecution, language laws. and no 2d
amendment?
A legal system based on the Nepoleanic code. Simple question. Would
you rather be charged with a crime in Paris or San Francisco?

Climate?
In the US you have a broad choice of climate. Pick the one you like
44% of Australia is virtually uninhabitable how is that a 100?
Environment?
They are injecting a huge amount of bias for something that has
nothing to do with quality of life (greenhouse gas)
If that is a problem, it is a problem for France as much as it is for
America. Why not talk about nuclear waste disposal, then France takes
a beating.

This is something generated by people with an agenda Why not look at
how many Americans are moving to Germany, France or Australia and how
many of them are moving here?

Logic and reason are not highly rated in the liberal agenda.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You've described anecdotal evidence. That's a bit limited.

I just did a Google search on "Canadian health care treatment delay",
4,380,000 results.

Perhaps you'll find this anecdotal evidence more compelling. It's
about half way down the first page of results:

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7441/660.2.extract

In article ,
says...

On 10/13/10 4:20 PM, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote:


Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.


And what "facts" would those be?
Foxfacts?

Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts.


The health care plan Mickey D's offers its low hourly wage employees is
little more than a joke. These are the very people who, if not covered
under a parental plan, should be able to participate in a decent
"public" plan.

---

I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Spoofer alert! I've stated here that I have many employees and I give
them to best healthcare money can buy.

In article ,
says...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


Depends on what you mean by "right away".
I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged
handsome' appearance. ;-)
It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with
liquid nitrogen.
This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny.
Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks
remained.
I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back
in case he has cancellations between now & then.
I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in
Florida, but the price is right.

I'm glad you took care of that pustule problem. It really bothered me
when you stuck your nose up my ass and all I could think of was those
nasty sores on your face.

On 13/10/2010 9:42 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe
anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg.

Happens all the time. Good part is they are liberal with the prescribed
medications that you will have to pay for.

The biggest problems are waiting lists, some as long as 2 1/2 years.

In my wife's case she had an ovarian cyst and had to wait 6 months not
knowing if it was cancerous or not. Fortunately it was not but no tests
were done on it until it was extracted. At 4 months there was a
cancellation so she got in early. I suspect if it was the US, she would
have been in and out in 2 weeks or less.

They have two schedules, one for workers and one for non-workers.
Workers get service much faster. Especially if they can legitimately
say they will be on sick leave or off because of it. If not enough
workers need the time, they offer it to the non-workers.

Rationing is practiced.

The Canadian system isn't as perfect as Obama would have you believe, as
the idea is really to get the cash flow going to government so they can
skim the proceeds and then justify it to raise taxes. Perhaps a 8%
national VAT.

The only strong part of the Canadian system is that all resident people
can get. While basic it is there.

I believe a hybrid system would be best. A head tax on people,
refundable if you have minimum insurance. That would cut down the many
who don't have insurance because their priorities are not to pay for it.
For the few remaining, medicade already exists. Just some fine tuning
of the laws.

In any case, Canadian or US, maximum liabilities need to be used. Not
everyone can go out costing $30 million unless they average contribution
is $30 million.

But in your case, you just want others to pay for it.
--
In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around.

On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


Depends on what you mean by "right away".
I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged
handsome' appearance. ;-)
It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with
liquid nitrogen.
This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny.
Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger
marks remained.
I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling
back in case he has cancellations between now & then.
I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in
Florida, but the price is right.

Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this
cosmetic for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles
later on -- covered.

Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done.

--
In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around.

On 10/14/10 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?

If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will
have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with
Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare
patients.

Easy to fix...don't renew the licenses of practitioners who turn down
medicare patients. Further, the comment about Canadian health
care/waiting for treatment for serious injuries is nonsense. I've been
to any number of discussions about health care in the U.S. and Canada,
especially as they relate to injuries sustained on the job. Canadians
aren't waiting for treatment. I'm sure,though, that you can find some
anecdotal bit that you believes proves your posit.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:16:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a
very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/


I still do not understand how they got their numbers.
Take Freedom.
France is 100 with religious persecution, language laws. and no 2d
amendment?
A legal system based on the Nepoleanic code. Simple question. Would
you rather be charged with a crime in Paris or San Francisco?

Climate?
In the US you have a broad choice of climate. Pick the one you like
44% of Australia is virtually uninhabitable how is that a 100?
Environment?
They are injecting a huge amount of bias for something that has
nothing to do with quality of life (greenhouse gas)
If that is a problem, it is a problem for France as much as it is for
America. Why not talk about nuclear waste disposal, then France takes
a beating.

This is something generated by people with an agenda Why not look at
how many Americans are moving to Germany, France or Australia and how
many of them are moving here?

Logic and reason are not highly rated in the liberal agenda.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

Lying and racism are very highly rated in your tiny brain.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:36:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those
items
are concentrated in the top percentages.

Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses,
big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats.
You were saying?


Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all
of that stuff ... paid for ... no debt.

I'm sure you are. Some people do fine and pay off their debt. That's not
typical, unfortunately.


That is a cultural problem promoted in the 70s when we were told it
was better to "use other people's money and pay them back with
inflated dollars".
I never bought into it but there are lots of people who fell for the
debt trap.
I was saved by a stock broker named John Flick from AG Edwards who sat
me down in 1971 or so and ran the numbers of that "live on credit"
lifestyle. Then he showed what happens when you save up money to buy
things. It didn't take long for me to understand I was too poor to
borrow money.
I will say it again. If you are too poor to pay your bills, how can
you afford to pay your bills plus paying a banker 20% (now 29.999%)
You can be broke at zero or you can live large a little longer and be
broke at your credit limit, hoping the bankruptcy court will make your
neighbors pay your bills.

I will say it again. When you have a relatively low monthly payment, even
though the interest rate is very high, you can typically make the payments
for some period of time. As a short-term solution, it works. Of course, for
long-term, the principal balance needs to be paid off.

Do you not understand this basic concept?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:40:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:18:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries
and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite
a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes
even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but
they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL.


There are a host of countries who's citizens live longer, are happier,
and
have better medical outcomes. Feel free to google on your own. It's
pretty
obvious.


"Happier" is a relative thing. Americans go out of their way to be
unhappy, if not, why do we beat ourselves up with studies about how
bad it sucks here?

Yes. It's done by polling I suppose. Or, is there some magic incantation
to
reveal it?


Polls usually get the answer the poll writer wants to get.

So, then there's no way to tell? How would you plan on getting the answer?
By divine inspiration? Please tell us.

I'm pretty happy but I try to be.

Good for you!

I think other cultures work harder to be happy and most of the people
I know do too but I also know a lot of people who just don't know how
to be happy and reject it at all costs. It is easier for them to be
unhappy and blame it on somebody else. Bob seems to be that way

Work harder... umm... like having a whole month off every year vs. two
weeks
in the US?

Who only gets 2 weeks off? new hires?

Most workers get 2 weeks off in the US. You have to be there a while before
that changes. Are you disputing this? If so, please provide the data.


As for medical outcome, it is not the outcome that is the problem, it
is the lifestyles we have that we take to the doctor. Start with out
obesity rate. That alone is enough to make our lifespan lower.
If you are really sick, you are a lot better off in the American
system than you would be anywhere else. That is why you don't see
people going to France or Canada for their heart transplant.
The problem is our system is too good. Mere mortals can't afford it.

Yes, it is the outcome. So obesity is a problem in the US (actually around
the world, but ok). Does that mean we've got a better lifestyle than
someone
in Germany, say, who isn't obese?

Ah, so our system is so good, it's bad. Solution... make it worse. I get
it.
What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote?

If you are strictly talking health, our system is so good it is bad.
We can afford to eat red meat at every meal and a lot of people do.
There is also the "corn" problem. Our farm policy ensures there is
corn in everything you eat. It might be the corn in your meat (higher
fat content, starch or the high fructose corn syrup that shows up in
most of the things you eat or drink. Sugar substitutes come with their
own health warnings
Obiesity is a serious health problem and the US is at or near the top
of the list every year.

Well, so with all our fancy medical treatments, we don't do as well as other
countries. As I said..